156 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33264472)
1. Acceptability and potential impact on uptake of using different risk stratification approaches to determine eligibility for screening: A population-based survey.
Usher-Smith JA; Harvey-Kelly LLW; Rossi SH; Harrison H; Griffin SJ; Stewart GD
Health Expect; 2021 Apr; 24(2):341-351. PubMed ID: 33264472
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Public Preferences for Determining Eligibility for Screening in Risk-Stratified Cancer Screening Programs: A Discrete Choice Experiment.
Dennison RA; Taylor LC; Morris S; Boscott RA; Harrison H; Moorthie SA; Rossi SH; Stewart GD; Usher-Smith JA
Med Decis Making; 2023 Apr; 43(3):374-386. PubMed ID: 36786399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A community jury study exploring the public acceptability of using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening.
Dennison RA; Boscott RA; Thomas R; Griffin SJ; Harrison H; John SD; Moorthie SA; Morris S; Rossi SH; Stewart GD; Thomas CV; Usher-Smith JA
Health Expect; 2022 Aug; 25(4):1789-1806. PubMed ID: 35526275
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.
Crider K; Williams J; Qi YP; Gutman J; Yeung L; Mai C; Finkelstain J; Mehta S; Pons-Duran C; Menéndez C; Moraleda C; Rogers L; Daniels K; Green P
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2022 Feb; 2(2022):. PubMed ID: 36321557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Implementation of risk stratification within bowel cancer screening: a community jury study exploring public acceptability and communication needs.
Taylor LC; Dennison RA; Griffin SJ; John SD; Lansdorp-Vogelaar I; Thomas CV; Thomas R; Usher-Smith JA
BMC Public Health; 2023 Sep; 23(1):1798. PubMed ID: 37715213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Acceptability of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening from the perspective of the general public: A mixed-methods systematic review.
Taylor LC; Hutchinson A; Law K; Shah V; Usher-Smith JA; Dennison RA
Health Expect; 2023 Jun; 26(3):989-1008. PubMed ID: 36852880
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Genetic testing and personalized ovarian cancer screening: a survey of public attitudes.
Meisel SF; Rahman B; Side L; Fraser L; Gessler S; Lanceley A; Wardle J;
BMC Womens Health; 2016 Jul; 16():46. PubMed ID: 27460568
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Predicting the future risk of lung cancer: development, and internal and external validation of the CanPredict (lung) model in 19·67 million people and evaluation of model performance against seven other risk prediction models.
Liao W; Coupland CAC; Burchardt J; Baldwin DR; ; Gleeson FV; Hippisley-Cox J
Lancet Respir Med; 2023 Aug; 11(8):685-697. PubMed ID: 37030308
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Risk prediction models versus simplified selection criteria to determine eligibility for lung cancer screening: an analysis of German federal-wide survey and incidence data.
Hüsing A; Kaaks R
Eur J Epidemiol; 2020 Oct; 35(10):899-912. PubMed ID: 32594286
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The Costs and Benefits of Risk Stratification for Colorectal Cancer Screening Based On Phenotypic and Genetic Risk: A Health Economic Analysis.
Thomas C; Mandrik O; Saunders CL; Thompson D; Whyte S; Griffin S; Usher-Smith JA
Cancer Prev Res (Phila); 2021 Aug; 14(8):811-822. PubMed ID: 34039685
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. People's willingness to accept overdetection in cancer screening: population survey.
Van den Bruel A; Jones C; Yang Y; Oke J; Hewitson P
BMJ; 2015 Mar; 350():h980. PubMed ID: 25736617
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Acceptability, benefit and costs of early screening for hearing disability: a study of potential screening tests and models.
Davis A; Smith P; Ferguson M; Stephens D; Gianopoulos I
Health Technol Assess; 2007 Oct; 11(42):1-294. PubMed ID: 17927921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Evaluation of Revised US Preventive Services Task Force Lung Cancer Screening Guideline Among Women and Racial/Ethnic Minority Populations.
Reese TJ; Schlechter CR; Potter LN; Kawamoto K; Del Fiol G; Lam CY; Wetter DW
JAMA Netw Open; 2021 Jan; 4(1):e2033769. PubMed ID: 33433600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A discrete choice experiment to understand public preferences and priorities for risk-stratified bowel cancer screening programmes in the UK.
Dennison RA; Thomas CV; Morris S; Usher-Smith JA
Prev Med; 2023 Dec; 177():107786. PubMed ID: 37984646
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Dutch women's intended participation in a risk-based breast cancer screening and prevention programme: a survey study identifying preferences, facilitators and barriers.
Rainey L; van der Waal D; Broeders MJM
BMC Cancer; 2020 Oct; 20(1):965. PubMed ID: 33023516
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Evaluation of the Benefits and Harms of Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force.
Meza R; Jeon J; Toumazis I; Ten Haaf K; Cao P; Bastani M; Han SS; Blom EF; Jonas DE; Feuer EJ; Plevritis SK; de Koning HJ; Kong CY
JAMA; 2021 Mar; 325(10):988-997. PubMed ID: 33687469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Prediction of Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility Using Simplified Criteria.
Triplette M; Donovan LM; Crothers K; Madtes DK; Au DH
Ann Am Thorac Soc; 2019 Oct; 16(10):1280-1285. PubMed ID: 31298946
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Public attitudes towards screening for kidney cancer: an online survey.
Harvey-Kelly LLW; Harrison H; Rossi SH; Griffin SJ; Stewart GD; Usher-Smith JA
BMC Urol; 2020 Oct; 20(1):170. PubMed ID: 33115457
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Reasons for intending to accept or decline kidney cancer screening: thematic analysis of free text from an online survey.
Freer-Smith C; Harvey-Kelly L; Mills K; Harrison H; Rossi SH; Griffin SJ; Stewart GD; Usher-Smith JA
BMJ Open; 2021 May; 11(5):e044961. PubMed ID: 34006549
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Women's acceptability of and experience with primary human papillomavirus testing for cervix screening: HPV FOCAL trial cross-sectional online survey results.
Smith LW; Racey CS; Gondara L; Krajden M; Lee M; Martin RE; Stuart G; Peacock S; Coldman AJ; Franco EL; van Niekerk D; Ogilvie GS
BMJ Open; 2021 Oct; 11(10):e052084. PubMed ID: 34620663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
